Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

No, Steve - way too long again.

Letīs just concentrate on your last few sentences:

Llewellyn was wrong about where the wounds were situated, that is your contention. We know that Nichols was cut up from breastbone to pubes, more or less, but you are happy to believe that Llewellyn missed this - he did not see it, simple as that, and faultily believed that there were no wounds other than at the lower abdomen. The Times of the 3:rd of September states:
"There were no injuries about the body until just above the lower part of the abdomen."
So to begin with, we have him quoted as saying not that the wounds were only on the lower abdomen, but instead that they commenced ABOVE the lower part of the abdomen. Just above, as he says - a specification that will prove very hard to put in numbers, I think.

And there goes your argument, of course.

And then you go and say that I must accept what Llewellyn said in every instance, otherwise ALL he said may be drawn into questioning.

But you already do that, Steve, donīt you? You already question it.

Each and every one of the wounds to the abdomen, but for the large wound, may have been situated on the lower abdomen. The top of the large wound may have been very shallow, only deepening when it reached the lower abdomen. It may well be that the damage done to the abdomen had a total focus on the lower part of the abdomen.
And that may have been exactly what LLewellyn pointed to, in saying that there were no injuries to the body until just above the lower part of the abdomen.

But you are reasoning that he may have forgotten about the neck wounds, is that it? Becasue they were ALSO injuries to the body and they were certainly above the lower abdomen!

So hereīs a thought: When you argue this matter, you obviously argue from a point of view where Llewellyn begins at the head and then follows the body down - and he does not find any injury at all until he has arrived at the lower abdomen.
In the process, he fails to see that her neck has been cut and he fails to notice that the large wound in the abdomen goes all the way up to the breastbone.

But what if he counted from the feet up? In that case, there are certainly no injuries to the body until the lower part of the abdomen (just kidding, since he said ABOVE the lower abdomen).

You can forget any idea that he did not know where the body was cut, though. Itīs poppycock at best, and something much worse otherwise.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: No you do not get away with it that easy. You claimed the use of the term surgery had implications with regards to Llewellyn and his skill and experience. Such was untrue.
Quote it, please.

My pleasure
Post 1518
"Yes, that is correct. That was apparently what he specialized in. But his working premises are described as a surgery, and since he was a member of the Royal college of surgeons I think it makes sense to suggest that he had surgical training."

Inaccurate you need to know what it was for before you can compare and evaluate it.

Inaccurate? So he was NOT an awardwinning surgeon? Which was EXACTLY what I said, nothing more, nothing less. How does that work?

Again taking out of context to the original post.
The inaccurate relates not to his award, but to how relevant it was and your reply that all that mattered was the award.

Again no one has suggested a wound to the omentum was lethal, where does this come from?

It comes from how LLewellyn said that the wounds to the abdomen were lethal, each on their own, whereas you say that there is no reason to speculate that any cut went beyond the omentum. And if they did not go beyond the omentum, LLewellyn must have thought that omentum cuts are lethal.

See how it works now?

The problem is he does not say the abdomenial wounds are lethal he says the vital areas.

If he could make a mistake about the position of the external wounds he could make mistakes about other things.

But he didnīt. And no, the second thing does not follow from the first anyway. If he could mistake Sean Connery for Dame Edna, he could mistake a Ford Mustang for a baby tram?

Not a good attempt to divert. His testimony as given is not accurate.

How is it remarkable to say it does not tell us how good he was. That is just a statement of fact, which you appear to struggle to accept.

Itīs remarkable to question the knowledge and experience of a man who was a house surgeon in London Hospital, who served as a medico for three police divisions, who was a member of the Royal College of Surgeons and who had won a prize for minor surgery, and it becomes even more remarkable when you compare him to Phillips - who you cannot grade as a post-mortem man anyway.
BOTH men were highly educated and trained, BOTH men had extensive experience and BOTH men must be ranked alongside each other until you have any evidence at all that he was a worthless post-mortem man in any shape or form. And you have not a scintilla of evidence to that end. Is that not correct?

None of which counters what I said does It?
Nothing you post says how good or bad he was.
Your reliance on a CV is truly touching.

Really?
Why?

Because he represented a small portion of men who were highly educated and who made a living out of knowing the matters he dealt with, because we know that he worked in the field of surgery and because that taken together must earn him a recognition as a professional in his field. And professionals in their fields are people we should trust. They are not infallible (the mere suggestion is ridiculous and unworthy of any debate at all), but they are the best people we can find.
Once we can find evidence that any of these persons is not doing a proper job, has lied about his qualifications, has slept throughout anatomy class or something such, we can begin a campaing of tarnishing him or her that may have something going for it, but until that kind of evidence can be produced: No.

But he made a mistake at the inquest.
And your view of professional medics is very shall we say rose tinted.
Having worked with leading world experts in several medical fields my view is perhaps more cynical and maybe more realistic.

And by that definition he cannot be considered to be wrong.

You are doing it AGAIN!!! I have said three times now that I do NOT consider the man infallible, can I please have that respected? Do NOT misrepresent what I am saying, PLEASE!!

You say such, but then reject any challenges made on the grounds he is a professional.
Even now you are arguing that he made no mistake in his testimony, when the data shows he did.

Again just because you say something, it is not nesseciraly so.
It's actually very funny!

Glad to amuse you, Steve. Prepare for more!

Go ahead my dear Christer, this is not taxing in the slightest.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Llewellyn was wrong about where the wounds were situated, that is your contention. We know that Nichols was cut up from breastbone to pubes, more or less, but you are happy to believe that Llewellyn missed this - he did not see it, simple as that, and faultily believed that there were no wounds other than at the lower abdomen. The Times of the 3:rd of September states:
"There were no injuries about the body until just above the lower part of the abdomen."
So to begin with, we have him quoted as saying not that the wounds were only on the lower abdomen, but instead that they commenced ABOVE the lower part of the abdomen. Just above, as he says - a specification that will prove very hard to put in numbers, I think.

And there goes your argument, of course

Not at all. He says in your quote, "just above". The sternum is not JUST above. It is at the top of the abdomen. I love how you search for a report that you think fits and it does not.

And then you go and say that I must accept what Llewellyn said in every instance, otherwise ALL he said may be drawn into questioning.

But you already do that, Steve, donīt you? You already question it.

Each and every one of the wounds to the abdomen, but for the large wound, may have been situated on the lower abdomen. The top of the large wound may have been very shallow, only deepening when it reached the lower abdomen. It may well be that the damage done to the abdomen had a total focus on the lower part of the abdomen.
And that may have been exactly what LLewellyn pointed to, in saying that there were no injuries to the body until just above the lower part of the abdomen.

Has I said before. Beware of what you speculate on.

But you are reasoning that he may have forgotten about the neck wounds, is that it? Becasue they were ALSO injuries to the body and they were certainly above the lower abdomen!

Now that is a very silly idea, given that the Neck wounds are given in detail Before he talks of the abdomenial wounds.

You can forget any idea that he did not know where the body was cut, though. Itīs poppycock at best, and something much worse otherwise.

No one is saying he did not know. Why not read what I really post.

He obviously knew where the cuts were as he described them. However he also made a mistake in his testimony, which no amount of denial can correct.



Steve

[Elamarna]

I am now in brick lane having a curryvso thatvis me til tomorrow.


Have a good evening all.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Not at all. He says in your quote, "just above". The sternum is not JUST above. It is at the top of the abdomen. I love how you search for a report that you think fits and it does not.

So tell me in inches, Steve: How far above is "just above"? You should try to temper yourself about how you love things about me, though -. it sounds decidedly unhealthy.

Has I said before. Beware of what you speculate on.

"Has I said before"? Me non comprendre, hombre. You need to try again.

Now that is a very silly idea, given that the Neck wounds are given in detail Before he talks of the abdomenial wounds.

Is it a silly idea? Really? He clearly says that "there were no injuries to the body until just above the lower abdomen". That seems to rule the neck out. It is very clearly above the lower abdomen and there was an injury there.
I thought you would pounce on that, Steve? It gives you a splendid opportunity to tell us that Llewellyn was wrong.

No one is saying he did not know. Why not read what I really post.

You are saying that he was wrong, Steve. To be wrong, you must have gotten something wrong.
Maybe you just wanted to say that he possibly expressed himself inexactly? Is that it?

He obviously knew where the cuts were as he described them. However he also made a mistake in his testimony, which no amount of denial can correct.

Ah good - you have understood that LLewellyn did know where the wounds were. Thank God for that.
But you sadly maintain that he made a mistake in his testimony. Itīs just that you cannot substantiate that, since all you have is the papers transcriptions, and we have no idea if LLewellyn somehow qualified himself.
And at the end of the day, just as I said, he may well be on the money anyway.

Now you have spent a whole day or three arguing that LLewellyn was a bad doctor who repeatedly got things wrong.

How do you think you are doing so far?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;421115]My pleasure
Post 1518
"Yes, that is correct. That was apparently what he specialized in. But his working premises are described as a surgery, and since he was a member of the Royal college of surgeons I think it makes sense to suggest that he had surgical training."


How does that describe his level of skill, and how does it lay down the amount of experience he had had? Which was the issue at hand?

You really need to try and understand what you are told, Steve. Really, really.

Again taking out of context to the original post.
The inaccurate relates not to his award, but to how relevant it was and your reply that all that mattered was the award.

No, I never said anything remotely like it. You asked what it proved that he had won a prize in minor surgery, and I replied that it proved that he had won a prize in minor surgery.

You cannot get the simplest of things right, can you? Or should I say that you prefer to get it wrong?

Iīll leave the rest to mercyful oblivion.

[Joshua Rogan]

It seems to me that when reports say that "the wounds" would have proved fatal, they are not referring to each individual stab or cut, but to the chains of stabs and cuts which laid the abdomen open. Nearly all reports describe the wounds as jagged or zig-zag, so almost certainly they were comprised of several incisions linked together.
Whether or not the individual cuts to the omentum went any deeper, the cumulative effect of an opening in the abdominal wall from crotch to sternum through which the intestines protruded would be very hard to survive.

[Fisherman]

It seems to me that when reports say that "the wounds" would have proved fatal, they are not referring to each individual stab or cut, but to the chains of stabs and cuts which laid the abdomen open. Nearly all reports describe the wounds as jagged or zig-zag, so almost certainly they were comprised of several incisions linked together.
Whether or not the individual cuts to the omentum went any deeper, the cumulative effect of an opening in the abdominal wall from crotch to sternum through which the intestines protruded would be very hard to survive.

Reasonably, yes - but I think it was said that each of these wounds were individually lethal, and some of them were not very big.
It was also said that the wounds to the abdomen would mean immediate death, and regardless of how the accumulation of wounds may well have been lethal, one must assume that it would take quite some time for them to get the work done.

[John G]

Elamarna: Not at all. He says in your quote, "just above". The sternum is not JUST above. It is at the top of the abdomen. I love how you search for a report that you think fits and it does not.

So tell me in inches, Steve: How far above is "just above"? You should try to temper yourself about how you love things about me, though -. it sounds decidedly unhealthy.

Has I said before. Beware of what you speculate on.

"Has I said before"? Me non comprendre, hombre. You need to try again.

Now that is a very silly idea, given that the Neck wounds are given in detail Before he talks of the abdomenial wounds.

Is it a silly idea? Really? He clearly says that "there were no injuries to the body until just above the lower abdomen". That seems to rule the neck out. It is very clearly above the lower abdomen and there was an injury there.
I thought you would pounce on that, Steve? It gives you a splendid opportunity to tell us that Llewellyn was wrong.

No one is saying he did not know. Why not read what I really post.

You are saying that he was wrong, Steve. To be wrong, you must have gotten something wrong.
Maybe you just wanted to say that he possibly expressed himself inexactly? Is that it?

He obviously knew where the cuts were as he described them. However he also made a mistake in his testimony, which no amount of denial can correct.

Ah good - you have understood that LLewellyn did know where the wounds were. Thank God for that.
But you sadly maintain that he made a mistake in his testimony. Itīs just that you cannot substantiate that, since all you have is the papers transcriptions, and we have no idea if LLewellyn somehow qualified himself.
And at the end of the day, just as I said, he may well be on the money anyway.

Now you have spent a whole day or three arguing that LLewellyn was a bad doctor who repeatedly got things wrong.

How do you think you are doing so far?

Ah good, you have acknowledged that because we only have the papers' transcription of Dr Llewellyn's evidence/ testimony then nothing he says, or supposedly said, can be substantiated. And who knows how many time he he might have "qualified himself." Of course, we can speculate until the cows come home as to whether the papers made errors or not, but I'm afraid that's not going to get us very far.

[Fisherman]

We need to ask Tom Wescott where he found this information, that he published in his dissertation "Old wounds" on these very boards:

"By the time Llewellyn stepped into the jury box the next day, he'd been asked to keep his remarks to a minimum, and did as he was told. As Dr. Phillips would soon warn Coroner Baxter at the Chapman inquest, "In giving these details to the public, I believe you are thwarting the ends of justice." "

I find it quite credible that Llewellyn was asked not to go into details, but I would love to see the source.

[Fisherman]

Ah good, you have acknowledged that because we only have the papers' transcription of Dr Llewellyn's evidence/ testimony then nothing he says, or supposedly said, can be substantiated. Of course, we can speculate until the cows come home as to whether the papers made errors or not, but I'm afraid that's not going to get us very far.

If you want to think that the collected weight of the inquest reports in the papers can be dismissed, then that is your choice. But you need to find another hobby if that is the case, or you will be left in total darkness.

Then again...

[John G]

If you want to think that the collected weight of the inquest reports in the papers can be dismissed, then that is your choice. But you need to find another hobby if that is the case, or you will be left in total darkness.

Then again...

But of course your idea of objectivity is to simply dismiss, or at least question/qualify, those parts of Dr Llewellyn's reported testimony that fail to support your particular theory.

And just for completeness, I didn't say that the reports should be dismissed, only that they can't be substantiated, which was actually your own argument-and one that you now no doubt widh you hadn't have made!

[Joshua Rogan]

Reasonably, yes - but I think it was said that each of these wounds were individually lethal, and some of them were not very big.

That's what I'm trying to say...the reports which say that describe the major wounds - the one up the centre, one along the groin and over the left hip - which are themselves composed of individual knife-cuts.

It was also said that the wounds to the abdomen would mean immediate death, and regardless of how the accumulation of wounds may well have been lethal, one must assume that it would take quite some time for them to get the work done.

I think only Baxter said the wounds would be immediately fatal. Most press reports I can find say they would "ultimately have proved fatal" or they were "sufficient to cause death".

[Elamarna]

Finished curry.
So decided to see if any more odd statements made. Glad to see Fish as not let me down

Elamarna: Not at all. He says in your quote, "just above". The sternum is not JUST above. It is at the top of the abdomen. I love how you search for a report that you think fits and it does not.

So tell me in inches, Steve: How far above is "just above"? You should try to temper yourself about how you love things about me, though -. it sounds decidedly unhealthy.

Sorry under no circumstances can the sternum be called the lower part of the abdomen.

To think you can somehow ask for a measurement in some attempt to get utterly pointless and meaningless figure which you can argue over is just beyond reasoning

Has I said before. Beware of what you speculate on.

"Has I said before"? Me non comprendre, hombre. You need to try again.

Just shows you do not actually read the posts you reply to.
Your suggestion of the lower cut being responsible for major damage is shall we say questionable.

Now that is a very silly idea, given that the Neck wounds are given in detail Before he talks of the abdomenial wounds.

Is it a silly idea? Really? He clearly says that "there were no injuries to the body until just above the lower abdomen". That seems to rule the neck out. It is very clearly above the lower abdomen and there was an injury there.
I thought you would pounce on that, Steve? It gives you a splendid opportunity to tell us that Llewellyn was wrong.

If he comments on the damage to the Neck first, which he did and then he goes on to the abdomen, it is clear that the comments about the wounds to the abdomen , and how high they went do not apply to his previous comments on the Neck wounds.

Sorry that the language confuses you. It really is simple.

No one is saying he did not know. Why not read what I really post.

You are saying that he was wrong, Steve. To be wrong, you must have gotten something wrong.
Maybe you just wanted to say that he possibly expressed himself inexactly? Is that it?

Nope it is not about expressing himself poorly, he made a basic mistake it happens.

He obviously knew where the cuts were as he described them. However he also made a mistake in his testimony, which no amount of denial can correct.

Ah good - you have understood that LLewellyn did know where the wounds were. Thank God for that.
But you sadly maintain that he made a mistake in his testimony. Itīs just that you cannot substantiate that, since all you have is the papers transcriptions, and we have no idea if LLewellyn somehow qualified himself.

Let me get this correct, newspaper reports of the inquest do not count?
These are the same reports you have for the "vital areas" with one major exception. When describing the abdomenial wounds he makes a mistake. That is clear.
The comments about the "vital areas" are not so, at least to you.
While there maybe debate about the reliability of the inquest press reports
if we dismiss them we are left with nothing but speculation. Anything goes

Now you have spent a whole day or three arguing that LLewellyn was a bad doctor who repeatedly got things wrong.

How do you think you are doing so far?

Most of the debate has focused on your intreptation of Llewellyn, not the man himself.
Only in the last 7 hours has the debate moved to a recorded mistake by the Doctor.
And even with it being there in black and white and in more than one source you deny it happened.
Self deception I feel.


Steve

[Fisherman]

But of course your idea of objectivity is to simply dismiss, or at least question/qualify, those parts of Dr Llewellyn's reported testimony that fail to support your particular theory.

And just for completeness, I didn't say that the reports should be dismissed, only that they can't be substantiated, which was actually your own argument-and one that you now no doubt widh you hadn't have made!

No, John, I have no such wish. I know quite well what can be substantiated and what cannot. And I live by it.

Nor is "my idea of objectivity" to dismiss the parts of Llewellyns testimony that fail to support my theory.

To begin with, no parts of LLewellyns testimony act against my theory - it is the interpretations of them made by people like Steve and you that do not support my theory.

To go on, I am not dismissing things that cannot be dismissed. I may well say that I think that they are no useful or viable solutions, but as such, I cannot dismiss them. And I am very aware of that.

Are there any more matters I can help to sort out for you?